JonnyMcA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike is not saying in the paper that the 2720 and
> 1142 BC are a true periodic event, but rather he
> is stating that here are two events that occurred
> during the time of the maya and their ancestors,
> and that based upon those two events the Maya
> created a calendar.
>
> The 2720 and 1142 BC NH4 events could be entirely
> uncorrelated with each other, being part of the
> stochastic influx of cosmic bodies, and the Maya
> could then have constructed a calendar from the
> temporal spacing. Indeed, there is no requesite
> that they had to remember the exact interval
> between them. The peaks could be 1575 years apart
> but the Maya could have remembered that it was
> 1577.
>
> If these are stochastic events (i.e. no
> periodicity), then one need not be concerned with
> the AD 1426 (which I presume you are meaning when
> you say 1400 BC) and AD 1862 since the mayans had
> already made their calendar by then. Also, these
> events, including the 2720 and 1142 may not be
> cosmic events, but could be signals of biomass
> burning. There is no requirement that any of them
> except the 1908 peak be of cosmic origin.
>
> Jonny
>
> The path to good scholarship is paved with
> imagined patterns. - David M Raup
The fundamental problem with this whole thing is that there was NO Maya calendar in either 2720 or 1142. The Long Count calendar dates to about 400-300 BC.

Bernard